tv [untitled] April 20, 2011 4:30am-5:00am PDT
primary source data. at that point there will not be disagreement about the numbers. and that there needs to be some problem solving. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. supervisor? we are going to public comment. any member that would like to comment on this item? please come forward? [inaudible] supervisors know that one of the things that all of us are really concerned about, quality of life
issues. we have a population of 816,000. we have a budget of about $6.6 billion. what the budget analysts and controllers office, rosenfield and my good friend, monique also works there. from time to time i keep in touch with them, so that they know what is happening in the community. now, the first measure that you supervisors should take that ties into the pensions and all that the supervisors sitting next to you, really involved in, is this. after management should be evaluated, yearly.
those results must be put in the internet. anyone making over $100,000, we need to know their performance evaluation. and the comptroller's office should set up some preliminary standards. we have too many people making $150,000, $175,000, $200,000, while impacting our budget. the final analysis it is quality of life issues -- [tone] thank you for the two minutes. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please? seeing no one, we will close public comment. this item will be continued to the call of the chair, taken
without objection. madam clerk, please call the next item >> item #9. -- please call the next item. >> item #9. hearing to receive an overview from the controller's office on the municipal transportation authority's transit effectiveness project and an update on status. supervisor avalos: this project was started several years ago and that caused some star in district 11 about some of the proposed recommendations for changes to the mta. today's hearing is to hear where we are at in the implementation. presenting his the comptroller's office's peg stevenson. >> good morning, supervisors. i will just make a couple of
introductory remarks. most of the presentation will be done by julie kirshbomb. while mta is still looking at hiring a project manager, she is continuing to guide the work through the mta. for our part, the comptroller's office and mta have been working together by a partnership for mets since 2006. we have been supporting in a variety of staff capacities. in general we have had the procurement of complex professional service contracts. we would procure transportation management designed by our early consultant, which by an early market study of operation analysis, demographic and transportation pattern analysis, we worked with them to
get grant funding to install automatic passenger counters, which greatly facilitated the data collection that informs tep throughout. early on there was an advisory group that met on a consistent basis dead included our office, the heads of a number of city agencies, mta, transportation authority, labor unions representing most muni workers, superpower, a number of other major expert -- superpowspur, r of others. after the a little process was finished, we assisted the mti it -- mta in professional consultation. i am happy to report that that
work is wrapping up. i think we are feeling over a long period of time that this work has been going on and the desire for the great seeds of change is to come through. we are one step closer with completion of implementation plans. julie can tell you more about the details. the staff supported it through the vetting process and considered a complete roster as circulated throughout the mta. we did a lot of the work collecting the capital project information. in the back there is a detailed set of schedules that they will be based on in sequence. we will be supporting the mta through environmental analysis, the next big step. we are also in discussion over the next big gap that i see,
financial planning for the entire program. 10% of the funding is clearly identified as needing support over the long term, which does not mean there is funding for the rest, but it is a complex process that needs to be looked through in terms of revenue, revenue bonding, and other brands that could assist the mta. they have a capable staff of the road, and after the environmental work is well under way. i am not the subject matter expert here, i will turn it over to julie. she has had the same discussion in recent weeks. mta found themselves with citizens' advisory committees. it is a good time to talk to you about this content. supervisor avalos: thank you, peg.
julie? i think that microphone is not on yet. try it now? >> cuff afternoon. i am the service planning manager for the mta. john haley is going to be joining me as well, to enter questions you might have related to this topic. as indicated, this is an exciting time to be here and present to you. we have reached a major milestone in the implementation strategy. it will serve as the guiding document moving forward. the planning process really wrapped up in earnest in october of 2008, after we had gone through extensive market research assessments and analyses. the recommendation that came out of that work was developed in february of 2008. we conducted extensive community
outrage. that was before developing a sign up -- final set of recommendations that went to the board in august of 2008. the board endorsed those recommendations for the purposes of the environmental review in october of 2008. since then they have guided the agency's work around transit implementation. the proposals were structured around a policy framework that identified the most heavily used routes called the rapid network. recommending that investment be targeted heavily towards this that work in order to improve the conditions for the majority of the customers. the local network and combined with rapid network to get customers. customers that are happy to make more than one transfer in most situations. community connectors are basic access routes. for example, they might connect
to a bart or metro station, getting people into the core grid. then there are specialized services, like ball park shuttle's, they are a part of the full transit package. they do not necessarily run at all times of the year. since 2008, we have made incredible accomplishments guided by tep. the first was december of 2009, when we implemented the first major route restructuring for the first time in two decades. that process included implementing many of the restructuring notions identified with allocations to the most crowded routes. we then followed that with service reductions and service ad-backs in a day of 2010.
while that is closer to the overall goal of the program. the second thing that we did was schedule improvements. during the planning process, one of the key operational issues identified was that we did not have enough schedulers. the finding was that we had fewer schedulers than ac transit. since then we have grown the scheduling group to six schedulers and two managers, having begun almost every schedule in the system. december of 2009, we touched about 60% of the weekday schedules. we have continued that work moving forward. some of the thickest lines were missing about 10 minutes of running time, round trip. what it meant was that it was hard for the bus to be on time
at any day. with schedule adjustments, the service was able to be more reliable. supervisor avalos: how recent has that change mean? what that was december of 2009. -- >> that was december of 2009. we have also reduced the amount of standby pay in the schedule, the amount of time operators are prepared to work. making schedules more efficient is key to stretching the resources that we have. the third area that we focused on was supervision. since the planning process we have developed an absenteeism policy. early recommendations were that there was this wonderful information that we were using to deliver to the customers, but it could also be used as a management tool. the line management center allows us to see all of the routes that once, of letting us
makes supervision decisions remotely. supervisor avalos: that is where the decisions are made on switchbacks? >> yes. another key to service travel time improvements is congestion management. in addition to developing the travel time reduction proposals, we have also pursued complementary projects, designed to reduce the amount of time people spend looking for parking. as well as a project that provides dedicated space for vehicles. on the infrastructure vehicle liabilities side, we have structured the state of the repair capital program to focus on state of good repair issues. the key accomplishment was the st. francis circle last summer. we are also working on the
rehabilitation program for critical vehicles. finally, as indicated, one of the legacies of this project was to be more data focused and we have been in the past. during the planning process we had passenger comments on 10% of the vehicles, giving us better information than we had in the past. was challenging to make sure that the vehicles got on the right route each day. we wanted a larger data size. 30%, implementing the deployment plan so that the vehicle circulates through the system and we were getting as many as 6 per month, per trip. supervisor avalos: it seems like you could get even better data on passengers and was paying, in your experience? >> the clipper card espy
providing information regardless of payment. the clipper card lets us know, for example, the people paying with a clipper, it lets us know where they are getting done, as well as their next trip, which has real potential for that data. not only have the automatic passenger counters informed how they did service planning, but they have also helped by uncomplimentary areas. negotiating the new shelter contract, advertisers use those as where they should advertising for a favorable contracts. during the planning phase, one of the key themes that we heard from data customers was that service should be safe and reliable. not only did slow travel times frustrate customers, they also
increased travel costs. the patterns are changing and we need a system that better reflects emerging neighborhoods as well as the important role of regional connections. a lot of our writers ship are on 15 heavily used corridors. concentrating there is an opportunity to maximize customer benefits. the schedule that i will present today brings support from the partners at the comptroller's office. extensively reviewed by staff, including our executive team, and it reflects the changes that have happened in muni service since the process cracked up. the goals that would guide the a implementation process came out of the planning process, including service reliability and reducing travel time and improving customer experience.
continuing to develop positive relationships for community customers and employees, developing cost-effective ways to optimize existing resources. the plan itself includes performance metrics tied to these goals so that we can monitor or process. the presentation is divided into five sections. there are the remaining projects left to be committed, and the schedule that is a high level document that will guide the work. the cost of funding provides estimates of total expenditures to deliver this program. environmental review is the next critical path. the organizational structure that changes is within the agency to deliver the program
successfully. the travel time production proposals are the key initiatives within the project, representing at $87 million about half of the total capital cost of the program. when implemented, they will reduce running times on the rapid network from 10% to 30%, helping to improve operational efficiency. the next main focus will be travel time reduction proposals. we have it vetted the route changes on a detailed level. what streets you are going on, the increased and decreased frequency. travel time projects were presented at a much higher level. the basic goal is the tool that we would use. moving forward we will work with communities in the same transparent way to get feedback on the proposal as we move towards implementation. the major elements of the travel
time reduction proposal includes a stop optimization. that may be consolidating stops or moving stops to a more optional location, for example although we do have near sides at stoplights to better take advantage of signal priority. boarding a islands so that the buses do not have to pull in and out of traffic. new traffic signals on the rail lines. we have a lot of stop signs and are slowing down heavy trains between stops. as well as traffic restrictions and parking changes. the more complex projects we are also considering, dedicated lines are the upper bound of what we would like to see in terms of transit priority. supervisor avalos: what do you see in those proposals? >> we are currently developing the package, but currently where we have the right of way.
we would not consider it on a street that is like san bruno, only one lane in each direction. there we might look at a q jump, a dedicated line for only a short time in the parking lane. mission street is an example where we are looking to see if there are opportunities for dedicated transit space. finally, we are recommending that with all of these projects they are complemented with a $500,000 per mile investment supporting the goal of the travel time reduction project, including ticket vending machines, a better sign image on how much to pay and what routes are there, as well as complementary pedestrian improvements. for example, if we look at removing a stop, it might be an opportunity to put in a small park or a crosswalk improvement.
the travel time reduction projects were developed by dividing the rapid network into about 25 segments throughout the city and looking at how much we saved per dollar spent, as well as per customer that benefited. from that we were able to prioritize 11 segments that we would like to see implemented by fiscal year 15. in some routes they include multiple segments. on the map you can see mission street divided into three segments. the road geometry changes quite a bit from the downtown to the intermission to the other mission. supervisor avalos: throughout the mission, you are looking
more at the entire length? many folks would likely want to know where the idea is to route the city. >> we are looking at a range of projects so that the community can weigh in. so that we can have that dialogue. i think it is premature at this point to talk about specifics. we are looking wherever there is an opportunity to develop the best possible transit options and then bring those proposals to the community. the remaining segments would be improved. funding available between fiscal years 16 and fiscal year 20. this scratches out a bit longer than we had initially intended the project. based on what we think is a moderately ambitious capital
expenditure per year. projects like market street, gary, van ness, we do not have travel time production proposals. we have complementary work going on there. supervisor avalos: the n line is being improved because the plan is still determined as a state? correct? and that is how it is looking at the improvements? >> i will talk about it later in the presentation. we actually modified the original proposal to be consistent with park planning work that has been under way. the second segments with record -- represent $49 million in investments, when viewed with market street investments you can see the entire rapid network coming into view, with
the goal being service 10% to 30% faster than today. service improvements are the second set of key initiatives for the transit and effectiveness project. with that of the goal of implementing changes in fiscal year 14 and fiscal year 16. each phase includes all the remainder of the route changes that have not been implemented. we believe that the service improvements will require additional operating dollars. the original proposals were budget neutral based on the 2008 budget, which anticipated tep and was not implemented because of the global economic crisis that occurred immediately following. we estimate that it will require more service hours. the travel time projects will help to offset the expense.
we believe that the changes are flexible enough that they can be modified based on the resources available. so, for example, 22 fillmore, we are recommending that service improved every six minutes, but of resources were not available due to go every 10 and 1/2 minutes. service improvements are basement quality framework. some of the original proposals were not apprised of the work happening. we had originally proposed that the j also determined the state. we were considering having this terminate.
during a mid-day you would just run service from downtown to balboa park. but in the peak you could run a short line on a long pattern. between park, merced, downtown, balboa park. that represents a trade-off. less service than is currently available. at the same time, it provides a direct connection to west portal and downtown, something that we heard a lot of concerns about during planning. supervisor avalos: what was the out reach that was done? folks had been informed about this proposal. last time that i remembered, it went from the comptroller's office in 2008. i am not sure if there is any other out reach in the community
to inform these proposed changes. >> we are in the process now through the implementation strategies. which was a good example of a group that we would want to connect with. the main reason we are recommending the changes the capital project being borne by the developer rather than other discretionary sources. another example would be -- supervisor avalos: on the out reach -- i do not mean to interrupt you -- it would be critical to have strong out of reach to the chinese speaking community around the omi neighborhood. they felt the least informed about the changes happening. they felt they had that been considered during the hysteria over what the changes were going to be. i think it was a good out reach plan for the chinese community. we need to nip that in the
blooud. >> thank you for that suggestion. i think it is important. the original limited proposals anticipated that the nine limited started at the 24th. when we went to implement the changes in december 2009, we saw that there was a marked far to the south. that has been very successful. we would not go to the shorter route, we would keep the route that is working effectively for the community. the other capital projects that support service changes include terminal transit points, as well as overhead wire expansions. fulton, there is a capital project to build bypass wires at several locations.
we are also looking to increase the number of accessible mail platforms that we have. we would like to expand to about five additional stops to expand accessibility to people that use wheelchair's. supervisor avalos: also critical as well. part of the plan for the tep was done prematurely, before the plan was implemented. which was based on the budget constraints of the mta. now we have folks that live along the avenue that do not have accessible key stops. people with wheelchairs. they have to go very great distances to find other ways of getting on transit. supervisor avalos: